update_action_plans_person

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses the deprecated status of Action Plans and recommends Automations, but it does not describe side effects, reversibility, permissions, or response behavior of the PUT operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the action and endpoint, then delivers a high-value deprecation warning and alternative routing. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple status-update operation, the description plus schema provides enough to select and invoke the tool correctly: the resource, HTTP method, required status values, and the deprecation fallback are all present. The only minor gap is that no return/output shape is mentioned, but the operation is simple enough that this is not critical.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already documents status values and the extraBody/extraQuery escape hatches, so the description need not repeat them. However, the required id parameter is only typed as a string with no semantic explanation, and the description adds no parameter-level detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action and resource: 'Update the status of an Action Plan to Person relationship,' backed by the exact PUT endpoint. It also clearly separates this tool from nearby siblings like create_action_plans_person and update_automations_person.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: because Action Plans are deprecated, agents should prefer create_automations_person and update_automations_person unless the user explicitly names an existing legacy Action Plan. This directly prevents incorrect tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.